Sinclair Retreats - Page 2

...Joe DeFeo, Sinclair's Vice President of News commented that, "As with all news programming produced by Sinclair's News Central, A POW Story is being produced with the highest journalistic standards and integrity. We have not ceded, and will not in the future cede, control of our news reporting to any outside organization or political group. We are endeavoring, as we do with all of our news coverage, to present both sides of the issues covered in an equal and impartial manner."

....David Smith noted that, "The experience of preparing to air this news special has been trying for many of those involved. The company and many of its executives have endured personal attacks of the vilest nature, as well as calls on our advertisers and our viewers to boycott our stations and on our shareholders to sell their stock. In addition, and more shockingly, we have received threats of retribution from a member of Senator John Kerry's campaign and have seen attempts by leading members of Congress to influence the Federal Communications Commission to stop Sinclair from broadcasting this news special. Moreover, these coordinated attacks have occurred without regard to the facts since they predated the broadcast of our news special."

Mr. Smith further stated, "We cannot in a free America yield to the misguided attempts by a small but vocal minority to influence behavior and trample on the First Amendment rights of those with whom they might not agree. [click over for station list, including three each in swing states of Ohio and Florida]

That's one way of looking at it.

JIm Rutenberg and Katie Zernike discuss Stolen Honor in the NY Times:

    The accusations include that [Kerry] single-handedly prolonged the Vietnam War, worsened the torture of prisoners of war and ultimately caused countless, needless deaths with his antiwar activism 30 years ago.

    The film is rife with out-of-context and incomplete quotations from Mr. Kerry and other antiwar veterans. Several historians said many accusations in it were not provable or stretched far beyond reality.

    Throughout, the film shows wrenching images of torture as ex-prisoners of war recount the deep sense of betrayal they felt after hearing about Mr. Kerry's Senate testimony in 1971 in which he recounted atrocities by American troops.

    Continued on the next page Page 1 — Page 2 — Page 3

Article tags

Spread the word
Bookmark and Share
Profile image for eric-olsen

Article Author: Eric Olsen

Career media professional Eric Olsen is honored to be the founder and former publisher of Blogcritics.org, and former publisher of Technorati.com, which both rule. He is now editor, co-founder, and CEO of The Morton Report.

Visit Eric Olsen's author pageEric Olsen's Blog

Read comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own
  • No image found
  • No image found
  • No image found

Article comments

— go to most recent comments
  • 1 - andy marsh

    Oct 20, 2004 at 8:06 pm

    I visited the Sinclair site more than a week ago and saw that very commentit was not the entire movie, that it had not yet been videotaped and Senator Kerry was invited to stand next to those guys and tell them that it wasn't his ugly mug their captors showed them to try to make them confess to shit they didn't do!!!

    Well, not in those EXACT words, more like what Eric had in his piece. But that's what I'm getting out of it!!!

    I don't think it's a retreat Eric, I'd actually call it a stance.

  • 2 - RJ

    Oct 20, 2004 at 10:09 pm

    Democrats oppose free speech.

    When Michael Moore placed his pseudo-documentary in theatres nationwide, the Left was quite pleased, and even made him a guest-of-honor at the DNC. This, despite his stated goal of affecting the Presidential election with his lies.

    But when a pro-GOP corporation tries to air a documentary based on the thoughts of actual real-life Vietnam vets who feel they were defemaed by Presidential candidate John. F. Kerry, the Democrats go berzerk and demand that the public not be allowed to view it on TV.

    Supporters of the Second Amendment have always felt the GOP was their home. Now supporters of the First Amendment can as well...

  • 3 - RJ

    Oct 20, 2004 at 10:10 pm

    defamed*

  • 4 - Hal Pawluk

    Oct 20, 2004 at 10:16 pm

    Republicans believe in speech owned by big business.


    They got rid of the Fairness Doctriine in broadcast, never saw a media merger they didn't like, and when media companies exceeded government limits, instead of penalizing them, they had Michael Powell of the FCC change the ownership limits to give their campaign contributors a free pass.

    It's down-right anti-American (unless you're one of the few Americans with access to the board room).


  • 5 - RJ

    Oct 20, 2004 at 10:45 pm

    Can I access the CBS boardroom? Or the CNN boardroom? Or the "Hardball" set?

    No?

    Yeah, those radical Republicans at ABC really frighten me...

  • 6 - Hal Pawluk

    Oct 20, 2004 at 10:47 pm

    No you can't, RJ, but you dont' control the media.

  • 7 - Lono

    Oct 21, 2004 at 1:29 am

    RJ,
    Mike Moore's movie differs from the Sinclair thing because Mike Moore and his movie are private entities, entitled to do what they want. Sinclair is a public subsidized entity, and so it governed by various laws... which include equal time for candidates.

    Also, Moore has never made any bones about his motivations. He has never once even claimed to be giving each side a fair shake.

    I don't see the same coming from Sinclair. They are dressing it up and skirting the issue. I believe this last announcement was made to stem the very severe financial bleeding this disastrous decision had caused. On just Monday and Tuesday the company lost 12% of their value. So last night they accounced a re-worded versiou slightly backing down (and mostly denying). It worked, their stock came right back up today. I have nothing nice to say to them, or their advertisers.

    As for the FCC, with Michael Powell as the chairman (son of Colin Powell) they are acting more as a privitized wing of the Republican party.

    Just one of the zillions of reasons I voted Democratic yesterday. Early voting rules! I did it in ten minutes at the local grocery chain here in Colorado.

    Thanks for listening, that was long... but I am pretty angry about this issue. Eric, sorry to hijack the thread.

  • 8 - Eric Olsen

    Oct 21, 2004 at 9:48 am

    I believe in the Fairness Doctrine: the public airwaves are perhaps, like a liquor license, a virtual license to steal, but with these cash cows come responsibility to the public, a responsibility most crucial during election time.

  • 9 - Hal Pawluk

    Oct 21, 2004 at 10:02 am

    Unfortunately, Eric, the Republicans killed the Fairness Doctrine:

    FAIRNESS DOCTRINE
    (opens in new window)

    The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the "Fairness Doctrine" is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair.

    With the deregulation sweep of the Reagan Administration during the 1980s, the Commission dissolved the fairness doctrine.

    The fairness doctrine ran parallel to Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1937 which required stations to offer "equal opportunity" to all legally qualified political candidates for any office if they had allowed any person running in that office to use the station.

    The FCC fairness policy was given great credence by the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court case of Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC.

    By 1985, the FCC issued its Fairness Report, asserting that the doctrine was no longer having its intended effect, might actually have a "chilling effect" and might be in violation of the First Amendment. In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts declared that the doctrine was not mandated by Congress and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it. The FCC dissolved the doctrine in August of that year.

    However, before the Commission's action, in the spring of 1987, both houses of Congress voted to put the fairness doctrine into law--a statutory fairness doctrine which the FCC would have to enforce, like it or not.

    But President Reagan, in keeping with his deregulatory efforts and his long-standing favor of keeping government out of the affairs of business, vetoed the legislation. There were insufficient votes to override the veto.

    Congressional efforts to make the doctrine into law surfaced again during the Bush administration. As before, the legislation was vetoed, this time by Bush.
    There is no Fairness, thanks to Reagan and Bush.

  • 10 - Mac Diva

    Oct 21, 2004 at 10:20 am

    Thanks for posting the Fairness Doctrine, Eric. Mike Kole has been claiming the media has not been deregulated. My references to the the equal time requirement for poltical content were dismissed on that thread. The media may not have been deregulated enough to please the extreme right, but deregulation has been substantial.

  • 11 - Mac Diva

    Oct 21, 2004 at 10:21 am

    Typo: political.

  • 12 - bob2112

    Oct 21, 2004 at 1:06 pm

    Thank the Almighty for justice being served to those who would fly in the face of God! Now Pat Robertson must have misunderstood what Bush said about there being no American casualties in Iraq war!

    Evil will pay in the end. Sinclair stock is dog shit, & God is going to permanantly screw with these neo-con traitors. Nov. 3, what's taking so long?
    Smite these GOP liars in their tracks!

    We thank thee for taking away some of the means these evildoers would use against the powers of righteousnss, but Nov. 3 is not here soon enough for your weary tortured believers. As for now we'll take what we can get, for we know the sun will rise again very soon, and darkness will fall on those who consistantly take your name in vain. Amen!

  • 13 - andy marsh

    Oct 21, 2004 at 1:11 pm

    Bob??? Is that a liberal prayer????

  • 14 - bob2112

    Oct 21, 2004 at 1:16 pm

    As liberal as it can get, my brother, For God has no beef with the Krusaders, only the Bob Jones Kool Aid dispenserers.
    Yes I said it, dispense-er-rers!

  • 15 - curt

    Oct 21, 2004 at 2:42 pm

    bob,
    did you mean jimmy jones?

  • 16 - bob2112

    Oct 21, 2004 at 3:05 pm

    No, Bob Jones! Jimmy Jones is dead. Bob Jones maybe as well, but he still has that creepy school whose credentials must get you a good job in a Southern faith-based institution or higher rank in some Klan, or National Alliance chapter! Pieces of shit!

  • 17 - andy marsh

    Oct 21, 2004 at 5:45 pm

    The NEW YORK TIMES, the MOST liberal paper on Earth, says that Stolen Honor SHOULD BE SHOWN on every network!!

    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/21/arts/television/21stan.html?ex=1099022400&en=3d84a732b293b65f&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1


    By ALESSANDRA STANLEY

    Published: October 21, 2004


    HA!!!

  • 18 - andy marsh

    Oct 21, 2004 at 5:56 pm

    You see...the deal is...he did those things...it's record!!!

    He testified before congress with bullshit stories, some of them from guys that weren't even in the service. And it hurt every one of those POW's.

    He met with a foreign enemy in a time of war. It doesn't matter what he was doing it for...it wasn't his job. and it hurt every one of those POW's.

    And I stand behind the veterans, at least one of them a Congressional Medal of Honor winner, that say he should not be president.

    I believe them more than I believe kerry.

  • 19 - bob2112

    Oct 21, 2004 at 6:03 pm

    Fair is fair. F-9/11 isn't going to change anyone's vote any more than 'SoldOut Honor' will.

    I agree that an attempt to stop the programming should've gone forward, as much as the Right tried to stop F-9/11 from being shown in theaters.

    I hope the theaters that heeded the warning by not showing the film, were paid something for their loss. The employees shouldn't suffer because some frightened of pig-headed owner was dumb enough not to show it!

  • 20 - Truth Minister

    Oct 21, 2004 at 6:05 pm

    Luckily I live in one of the few cities that will be airing it. Sinclair owns the local ABC station.

    The democrats are just angry that their hero Michael Moore won't have enough time to try and counter with more of his stupidity. Moore should name his next flick "Appetite 911" documenting how he wages war on an all you can eat buffet.

  • 21 - andy marsh

    Oct 21, 2004 at 6:12 pm

    How can you compare Michael Moores' rhetoric and cut and paste movies to all those POW's???

    Why would all those guys that were locked away in prisons during a time of war feel that way???

  • 22 - Truth Minister

    Oct 21, 2004 at 6:20 pm

    Are you referring to bob2112br5496280955?

  • 23 - Hal Pawluk

    Oct 21, 2004 at 6:37 pm

    By now, andy, you've found out that posting long URLs screws up Blogcritics. The fix is to first go to tinyULR and get a tiny URL like this one:


    http://tinyurl.com/6gxvt


  • 24 - andy marsh

    Oct 21, 2004 at 7:17 pm

    Thank you Hal...You're not such a bad guy after all...

  • 25 - Hal Pawluk

    Oct 21, 2004 at 7:25 pm

    No, not "after all."

Add your comment, speak your mind

Personal attacks are NOT allowed.
Please read our comment policy.
Please preview your comment.